5 ms·

Doesn't Netflix use AV1 exclusively to stream it's contents? Even if it's not using it, I think that this news will be a boon to AV1 usage adoption as i hope th

Doesn't Netflix use AV1 exclusively to stream it's contents? Even if it's not using it, I think that this news will be a boon to AV1 usage adoption as i hope that HEVC will be replaced with AV1 in Netflix.

capableweb 3y ago
Well, I guess apparently not? Otherwise how would the court end up deciding they have to stop using HEVC, if they're not using it?
newsclues 3y ago
I don't think all devices support AV1 decode, so unlikely.
- vetinari 3y ago
  All devices do not have to support AV1 decode. Send the AV1 stream to AV1-capable, fallback to AVC. Previously, there could be AV1 > HEVC > AVC priorities set up, after this only AV1 > AVC.
nicolaslem 3y ago
AV1 hardware decoding is still pretty rare, it seems unlikely that the cheap SOCs in smart TVs and the like are able to software decode AV1 at high resolutions.
- vetinari 3y ago
  Nowadays its pretty common, but not everyone has relatively recent devices.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    Nowadays = this + last generation on nVidia, Intel and AMD GPUs? It's still fairly uncommon on ARM, MIPS, etc GPUs being used in low-cost cores for TVs and set top boxes. Mali being the biggest.
    - phh 3y ago
      > It's still fairly uncommon on ARM, MIPS, etc GPUs being used in low-cost cores for TVs and set top boxes. Youtube made it mandatory to have AV1 decoding in TVs/STBs for new devices since 2? 3? years, so it should become more common. (but embedded SoCs not meant for TV are still way behind.) > Mali being the biggest. FWIW, on the vast majority of devices (well, all that I'm aware of), Mali isn't responsible for hardware video decoding.
      - deaddodo 3y ago
        > Youtube made it mandatory to have AV1 decoding in TVs/STBs for new devices since 2? 3? years, so it should become more common. I think you mean Google, and they made it mandatory for Android. Most of those old devices don't use the latest Android version. And YouTube still happily delivers up VP9 to older versions as recently as two months ago. > FWIW, on the vast majority of devices (well, all that I'm aware of), Mali isn't responsible for hardware video decoding. If you're talking about LG, Samsung and Sony; yeah they have their own image processing hardware. That only applies if you're using the TV's app and not a settop device. To clarify, I'm not claiming there are no AV1 devices or that it's particularly rare. Just stating that it's not ubiquitous enough to be made universal without a large segment of the populace/devices being affected.
        phh 3y ago
        > I think you mean Google, and they made it mandatory for Android. Most of those old devices don't use the latest Android version. And YouTube still happily delivers up VP9 to older versions as recently as two months ago. I mean Youtube. Mentioning Youtube requirement is more relevant than Android's requirement since many more TVs and STBs ship with Youtube than just Android, and is older than Android's. > If you're talking about LG, Samsung and Sony; yeah they have their own image processing hardware. I'm not. Amlogic, Rockchip, Allwinner, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Mediatek, Unisoc, Google Tensor, Realtek. None of those SoC vendor use Mali for hardware video decoding. Wikipedia [0] list a lot of SoCs using Mali GPU, but doesn't list a single one using Mali video decoder. Looks like they abandoned it since they haven't announced any new version since 2019. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_(processor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_(processor)
  - jlokier 3y ago
    Apple only added hardware AV1 decoders to their new laptops less than a month ago, and to their new phones two months ago. The M2 laptops released in January don't have it. The Apple TV doesn't have it yet, but unlike many set top boxes, it is powerful enough to decode some AV1 streams in software.
    - vetinari 3y ago
      Apple is a specific case, again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38140486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38140486
      - fomine3 3y ago
        Unfortunately, Qualcomm is also a specific case. So delayed adoption of AV1 HW decoding is majority on mobile.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Apple is a bad example to go on. They eschew (especially) NIH standards until the point when it's beneficial to them, especially when it's beneficial to another (competing) platform to have interoperability. RCS, PWAs, etc.
kcb 3y ago
Netflix has primarily used HEVC every time I've checked for a while now. Especially for any of the 4K HDR stuff.
Thaxll 3y ago
av1 is not broadly supported, for example the Chromecast does not supports it.
oynqr 3y ago
Netflix can run on the absolute worst of TV boxes, many still on armv7. AV1 is a pipe dream on these.
- vetinari 3y ago
  armv7 boxes won't be playing 4k hdr content anyway, they are going to use AVC as they did previously.
phh 3y ago
> Doesn't Netflix use AV1 exclusively to stream it's contents? And double its electrical power impact by going from hardware decoding to software decoding? I certainly hope not. (Anyway on TVs, it's impossible to do in software decoding, both because the CPUs are very bad, and even with literally 0 CPU you can't access 4K HDR surfaces) > that HEVC will be replaced with AV1 in Netflix. I personally would wait for AV1 to be court-tested before eagerly switching to it. Unlike dear ol' Theora, AV1 wasn't designed to not be patent encumbered. One would even argue the opposite. It is "patent free" only because Google claimed it was, and we're hoping noone will have the will to go against Google. Broadcom might have them.
- clouddrover 3y ago
  > It is "patent free" only because Google claimed it was You're confusing two separate issues: patents and the licensing of those patents. AV1 is not "patent free" at all. There are plenty of patents that pertain to AV1 owned by the Alliance for Open Media. AOMedia gives you a patent license to use AV1 royalty-free: https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ https://aomedia.org/press%20releases/the-alliance-for-open-media-statement/ https://aomedia.org/press%20releases/the-alliance-for-open-m... What's happening separately is that patent licensing organizations are forming their own patent pools in an attempt to seek rent from existing and future AV1 users. Their claim is that they have patents essential to AV1 and you must pay them a licensing fee. Sisvel is trying it on: https://www.sisvel.com/licensing-programmes/audio-and-video-coding-decoding/video-coding-platform-av1/ https://www.sisvel.com/licensing-programmes/audio-and-video-... And so is Avanci: https://www.avanci.com/video/ https://www.avanci.com/video/ They characterize this is as providing AV1 implementers the "opportunity" to minimize the risk of being sued: https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=161147 https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?Art... These grubby patent pool organizations are the practical reason why it's better to stick with royalty-free formats and protocols on the internet. And why more work must to go into making sure internet audio and video formats are and remain royalty-free.
  - Hamcha 3y ago
    At least from face value it seems the value of those patents is exactly to fight back patent pools organizations, at part of the AOM stipulation is that if someone tries to sue over AV1 patents they would lose access to every patent holder portfolio (for AOM that would mean Google, Apple, Amazon and many others tech giants). Though it seems that still won't stop everyone.
mjh2539 3y ago
AV1 is fairly cutting-edge as far as codecs go, so typically only newer devices can perform AV1 hardware decoding.
viktorcode 3y ago
I think they would prefer HEVC for mobile devices and some TV models that don’t support AV1
JamesSwift 3y ago
No one uses any codec 'exclusively' because you need the client devices to be able to decode what you serve them. I think the current strategy is that they have AV1 for large/popular media, then h265 and ultimately h264 as fallbacks. Client-side hardware support is what holds AV1 back currently.

capableweb 3y ago

Well, I guess apparently not? Otherwise how would the court end up deciding they have to stop using HEVC, if they're not using it?

newsclues 3y ago

I don't think all devices support AV1 decode, so unlikely.

vetinari 3y ago
All devices do not have to support AV1 decode. Send the AV1 stream to AV1-capable, fallback to AVC. Previously, there could be AV1 > HEVC > AVC priorities set up, after this only AV1 > AVC.

nicolaslem 3y ago

AV1 hardware decoding is still pretty rare, it seems unlikely that the cheap SOCs in smart TVs and the like are able to software decode AV1 at high resolutions.

vetinari 3y ago
Nowadays its pretty common, but not everyone has relatively recent devices.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  Nowadays = this + last generation on nVidia, Intel and AMD GPUs? It's still fairly uncommon on ARM, MIPS, etc GPUs being used in low-cost cores for TVs and set top boxes. Mali being the biggest.
  - phh 3y ago
    > It's still fairly uncommon on ARM, MIPS, etc GPUs being used in low-cost cores for TVs and set top boxes. Youtube made it mandatory to have AV1 decoding in TVs/STBs for new devices since 2? 3? years, so it should become more common. (but embedded SoCs not meant for TV are still way behind.) > Mali being the biggest. FWIW, on the vast majority of devices (well, all that I'm aware of), Mali isn't responsible for hardware video decoding.
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      > Youtube made it mandatory to have AV1 decoding in TVs/STBs for new devices since 2? 3? years, so it should become more common. I think you mean Google, and they made it mandatory for Android. Most of those old devices don't use the latest Android version. And YouTube still happily delivers up VP9 to older versions as recently as two months ago. > FWIW, on the vast majority of devices (well, all that I'm aware of), Mali isn't responsible for hardware video decoding. If you're talking about LG, Samsung and Sony; yeah they have their own image processing hardware. That only applies if you're using the TV's app and not a settop device. To clarify, I'm not claiming there are no AV1 devices or that it's particularly rare. Just stating that it's not ubiquitous enough to be made universal without a large segment of the populace/devices being affected.
      - phh 3y ago
        > I think you mean Google, and they made it mandatory for Android. Most of those old devices don't use the latest Android version. And YouTube still happily delivers up VP9 to older versions as recently as two months ago. I mean Youtube. Mentioning Youtube requirement is more relevant than Android's requirement since many more TVs and STBs ship with Youtube than just Android, and is older than Android's. > If you're talking about LG, Samsung and Sony; yeah they have their own image processing hardware. I'm not. Amlogic, Rockchip, Allwinner, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Mediatek, Unisoc, Google Tensor, Realtek. None of those SoC vendor use Mali for hardware video decoding. Wikipedia [0] list a lot of SoCs using Mali GPU, but doesn't list a single one using Mali video decoder. Looks like they abandoned it since they haven't announced any new version since 2019. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_(processor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_(processor)
- jlokier 3y ago
  Apple only added hardware AV1 decoders to their new laptops less than a month ago, and to their new phones two months ago. The M2 laptops released in January don't have it. The Apple TV doesn't have it yet, but unlike many set top boxes, it is powerful enough to decode some AV1 streams in software.
  - vetinari 3y ago
    Apple is a specific case, again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38140486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38140486
    - fomine3 3y ago
      Unfortunately, Qualcomm is also a specific case. So delayed adoption of AV1 HW decoding is majority on mobile.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Apple is a bad example to go on. They eschew (especially) NIH standards until the point when it's beneficial to them, especially when it's beneficial to another (competing) platform to have interoperability. RCS, PWAs, etc.

kcb 3y ago

Netflix has primarily used HEVC every time I've checked for a while now. Especially for any of the 4K HDR stuff.

Thaxll 3y ago

av1 is not broadly supported, for example the Chromecast does not supports it.

oynqr 3y ago

Netflix can run on the absolute worst of TV boxes, many still on armv7. AV1 is a pipe dream on these.

vetinari 3y ago
armv7 boxes won't be playing 4k hdr content anyway, they are going to use AVC as they did previously.

phh 3y ago

> Doesn't Netflix use AV1 exclusively to stream it's contents? And double its electrical power impact by going from hardware decoding to software decoding? I certainly hope not. (Anyway on TVs, it's impossible to do in software decoding, both because the CPUs are very bad, and even with literally 0 CPU you can't access 4K HDR surfaces) > that HEVC will be replaced with AV1 in Netflix. I personally would wait for AV1 to be court-tested before eagerly switching to it. Unlike dear ol' Theora, AV1 wasn't designed to not be patent encumbered. One would even argue the opposite. It is "patent free" only because Google claimed it was, and we're hoping noone will have the will to go against Google. Broadcom might have them.

clouddrover 3y ago
> It is "patent free" only because Google claimed it was You're confusing two separate issues: patents and the licensing of those patents. AV1 is not "patent free" at all. There are plenty of patents that pertain to AV1 owned by the Alliance for Open Media. AOMedia gives you a patent license to use AV1 royalty-free: https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ https://aomedia.org/press%20releases/the-alliance-for-open-media-statement/ https://aomedia.org/press%20releases/the-alliance-for-open-m... What's happening separately is that patent licensing organizations are forming their own patent pools in an attempt to seek rent from existing and future AV1 users. Their claim is that they have patents essential to AV1 and you must pay them a licensing fee. Sisvel is trying it on: https://www.sisvel.com/licensing-programmes/audio-and-video-coding-decoding/video-coding-platform-av1/ https://www.sisvel.com/licensing-programmes/audio-and-video-... And so is Avanci: https://www.avanci.com/video/ https://www.avanci.com/video/ They characterize this is as providing AV1 implementers the "opportunity" to minimize the risk of being sued: https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=161147 https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?Art... These grubby patent pool organizations are the practical reason why it's better to stick with royalty-free formats and protocols on the internet. And why more work must to go into making sure internet audio and video formats are and remain royalty-free.
- Hamcha 3y ago
  At least from face value it seems the value of those patents is exactly to fight back patent pools organizations, at part of the AOM stipulation is that if someone tries to sue over AV1 patents they would lose access to every patent holder portfolio (for AOM that would mean Google, Apple, Amazon and many others tech giants). Though it seems that still won't stop everyone.

mjh2539 3y ago

AV1 is fairly cutting-edge as far as codecs go, so typically only newer devices can perform AV1 hardware decoding.

viktorcode 3y ago

I think they would prefer HEVC for mobile devices and some TV models that don’t support AV1

JamesSwift 3y ago

No one uses any codec 'exclusively' because you need the client devices to be able to decode what you serve them. I think the current strategy is that they have AV1 for large/popular media, then h265 and ultimately h264 as fallbacks. Client-side hardware support is what holds AV1 back currently.